A Chink of Light in the Indian Forest (Haribabu, (1998), Tourism in Focus, Autumn Issue, No. 29)

Here has been a long-standing conflict between the natural inhabitants of India's Nagarahole National Park in Karnataka, the Adivasis, and the forest authorities. But in 1996 it became a national issue when the Karnataka State Government leased out 56.41 acres of forest land, along with infrastructure built by the Karnataka Forest Development Corporation, to Gateway Hotels and Gateway Resorts Limited, a division of the Taj Group of Hotels. This land and infrastructure was leased for 18 years to launch a Rs.40 crore hotel project inside the National Park. (1 Crore Rupees is approximately 145,000 Pound Sterling).
Since the enactment of the Wild Life Protection Act in 1972, forest-dwelling Adivasis all over India have been forcibly displaced. Yet the Karnataka Government saw no conflict between protecting wildlife and the development of an eco-tourism hotel project in the forest . In the ensuing legal battle, the Karnataka High Court declared in April 1997 that 'the assignment of a portion of forest land by the state government to the Taj Group was in violation of Section 20 read with Sec. 35 (3) of the Wildlife protection Act, 1972 which prohibits acquisition of land within the National Park; and Sec. 2 (3) of the Forest Conservation Act 1980, under which prior approval of the Union Government was mandatory for assigning forest land for non-forestry purposes. Earlier, in January 1997, a petition filed by the Nagarahole Budakattu Hakku Samsthapana Samiti, was upheld, ruling that no concrete structure should be erected in a reserve forest.
The Taj Group approached the Supreme Court to overturn the High Court Order and that case is pending. But in the meantime, the Central Government has emphatically stepped on to the scene. In a letter of May 28, 1998, the chief conservation officer at the Ministry of Environment and Forests directed the State Government to reclaim the land leased out to Taj Group within 45 days. The Central Government also demanded a report within 60 days from the State Government on what action it was going to take against the officers involved in leasing the land to the hotel group. The chief conservation officer's letter pointed out various inconsistencies in the Karnataka Government's actions; and expressed the view that, far from backing the hotel group in mounting an appeal it should have suspended the lease order and taken back the land after the High Court's judgement.
The State Government remained defiant. It replied that the project had received the backing of the Central Government’s Committee on Wildlife Tourism, so should be allowed to proceed. This prompted a second letter in October refusing permission for the Taj project. Rejecting the Karnataka Government's plea, the letter again asked that the responsibility for the deliberate violation of provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. be fixed and action taken or proposed to be taken against the officials concerned be reported within a period of 30 days'.
It was also observed that the committee on Wildlife Tourism had not actually lent its unqualified support to the project. In fact it had laid down twelve conditions, including converting the proposed conference hall and board rooms to an orientation and wildlife/environmental education centre, abolition of the bar facility, scrapping of the tennis courts, a maximum capacity of 128, and scrapping proposed air-conditioning and diesel generators. Visitor numbers were also to be restricted to 100 per day. Moreover, the No Objection Certificate from the Pollution Control Board had been granted in defiance of conditions laid down, which would have required additional forestland to enable compliance with them. These were the circumstances in which the Central Government stepped in to override the decision of the Karnataka Government.
The Adivasis have also strongly objected to another State Government move to extend the Rajiv Gandhi National Park of Nagarahole to 643 sq. kms. The park, when first mooted in 1972, had 180 acres. It was extended - without proper notification - to 380 acres in 1980, then to 500 acres. Under the Wildlife Act the state has to acquire and notify additional forest areas, and then seek the approval of the Union Government for them to be included officially as National Park. The Adivasis contend that the move to notify such an extensive area would jeopardise the livelihoods of 32,000 Adivasis living in and around the park. They have petitioned the Assistant District Commissioner, alleging that the extension would be contrary to the 73rd Amendment of the Constitution which advocates self-rule for the Adivasis in their areas; and also contrary to international agreements on human rights.
The reference to self-rule has to be understood in the context of potential funding by the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility of eco-development projects. (The GEF is a financial mechanism that provides fund to countries for projects that aim to protect the global environment (it is implemented by the UN Development programme, the UN Environment Programme and the World Bank). The Adivasis argue that the government and forest department's over-enthusiasm for the project is on account of the huge amounts of money involved.
When the World Bank Inspection Panel visited Nagarahole early in September, the Adivasis put their case directly to them. They explained the harassment and pressures exerted by the forest officials since the eco-development project had been proposed. They were, they explained, seeking constitutional self-rule and the participation of the people in preserving and managing the nation’s forest cover. What the Adivasis of Nagarahole want, they told the inspection panel, is their dignity, not the World Bank's money.